Gore would kick ass if he threw his hat in

Why suprised, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that lieberman would have killed Gore. Or been involved in the assination.
Lieberman is an Bushist ass, but I have seen nothing to indicate he is a assisinator.
I just consider this theory out in left field a bit.
 
uscitizen said:
Why suprised, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that lieberman would have killed Gore. Or been involved in the assination.
Lieberman is an Bushist ass, but I have seen nothing to indicate he is a assisinator.
I just consider this theory out in left field a bit.
Click to expand...

I've not said, implied, nor intimated in any way that Lieberman would have killed Gore.

I'm surprised by your "koolaid" reference which is straight out of the neocon playbook.
 
Cypress said:
Fair enough. It's your choice, if you want to believe Gore would be assassinated.

I don't rule out that assasinations do happen, or that there are powerful interest groups in this nation that try to influence events and policy. Sometimes, through devious means.


But, I also put my faith in facts and evidence. Speculation is of little use to me.

I look at it this way:

Fact: A President Gore would now have invaded iraq.

Speculation: The PNAC kooks would have assisnated Gore, and had Lieberman invade Iraq.



I'm going with facts, until I can see some substantiation that support speculation.
Click to expand...

Prior to the (s)election of Bush, there were no facts to suggest that he would attack Iraq. If you believed that, you were speculating.
 
blackascoal said:
I've not said, implied, nor intimated in any way that Lieberman would have killed Gore.

I'm surprised by your "koolaid" reference which is straight out of the neocon playbook.
Click to expand...

Ohh my mistake then, I did mention involvement, not just lieberman killing Gore.
I somehow got the impression that you thought Gore would have died if Lieberman was elected president. to me that smacks of implication.

But my bad I guess...
 
blackascoal said:
Prior to the (s)election of Bush, there were no facts to suggest that he would attack Iraq. If you believed that, you were speculating.
Click to expand...

Prior to the (s)election of Bush, there were no facts to suggest that he would attack Iraq

Incorrect.

During a presidential debate with Gore, he certainly was beating the war drums on iraq...and claiming that he wanted to "take care" of Saddam.

To me, it was a minor matter of elemetary deduction in the year 2000, to see that Bush was a dangerously incompetent man, who valued bravado, swagger, and violence, over prudence and deliberation.
 
There is a real need to stop this sort of speculation once & for all.

If Bush isn't elected in 2000, we're not in Iraq right now.

Period.
 
bob said:
well if they are dead it might be kinda hard to have an opinion...

so your saing that gore wouldnt have gone to war givin the circumstances...

if i remember correctly he was one of the people in the clintion admin that was loud about fighting terror, and dealing with saddam with use of force
Click to expand...

bob said:
what an oxymoron.... that is speculation
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It's a fact.

It's been a fun discussion, though.
 
Cypress said:
Prior to the (s)election of Bush, there were no facts to suggest that he would attack Iraq

Incorrect.

During a presidential debate with Gore, he certainly was beating the war drums on iraq...and claiming that he wanted to "take care" of Saddam.

To me, it was a minor matter of elemetary deduction in the year 2000, to see that Bush was a dangerously incompetent man, who valued bravado, swagger, and violence, over prudence and deliberation.
Click to expand...

Most of America knew he was incompetent which is why most of America voted against him. However, never once did he say he was going to attack Iraq, nor be subservient to the dictates of his neocon masters or PNAC.

Instead he spoke of diplomacy and compassionate conservatism.

I agree that we all knew that tragedy was down the road to Bush and we all SPECULATED what was going to happen.

My point is that it takes no genius to speculate what may have happened to Gore. The selection of Lieberman was disastrous and ill-concieved.

As you stand by your analysis and speculation, I stand by mine.
 
All I can find to make one out of is Aluminum foil.....

I think I do have some kool aid packets in the cubbard though.
 
blackascoal said:
Most of America knew he was incompetent which is why most of America voted against him. However, never once did he say he was going to attack Iraq, nor be subservient to the dictates of his neocon masters or PNAC.

Instead he spoke of diplomacy and compassionate conservatism.

I agree that we all knew that tragedy was down the road to Bush and we all SPECULATED what was going to happen.

My point is that it takes no genius to speculate what may have happened to Gore. The selection of Lieberman was disastrous and ill-concieved.

As you stand by your analysis and speculation, I stand by mine.
Click to expand...


It was a terrible choice. And it all goes back to giving into the intimidation of the right wing. Lieberman made a big show, if you remember, of loudly chastising Clinton for his sex life. Gore was running away from Clinton (big mistake), and I think that's why he chose Lieberman.
 
Onceler said:
There is a real need to stop this sort of speculation once & for all.

If Bush isn't elected in 2000, we're not in Iraq right now.

Period.
Click to expand...

He's right .. that is speculation, not to suggest that speculation isn't a critical element of political analysis .. just don't run from it when doesn't suit your point of view.
 
blackascoal said:
Most of America knew he was incompetent which is why most of America voted against him. However, never once did he say he was going to attack Iraq, nor be subservient to the dictates of his neocon masters or PNAC.

Instead he spoke of diplomacy and compassionate conservatism.

I agree that we all knew that tragedy was down the road to Bush and we all SPECULATED what was going to happen.

My point is that it takes no genius to speculate what may have happened to Gore. The selection of Lieberman was disastrous and ill-concieved.

As you stand by your analysis and speculation, I stand by mine.
Click to expand...

I can honestly say, that no way could I have predicted that he would invade and occupy iraq.

But, I can say that in 2000, I saw a man who was predisposed towards violence, arrogance, and swagger. I saw him say that we needed to "take care" of saddam, and I saw him smirk and nearly giggle when he talked about executing a mentally retarded man in Texas.

I knew that putting this psycho in charge of foregin affairs and our miliary might have dire consequences.

I thought that Al Gore was a man who exhibited a fair amount of prudence, and deliberation. A man who would not make rash, ill-considered decisions.

For that reason alone, this country would have been much better off with Gore. It's just silly to assert that things would have turned out the same. Actually, on second thought, you can assert that. But, I place minimal value on unsubstantiated assertions and speculations.
 
I'm just tired of it. "We don't know what Gore would have done w/ Iraq"...to me, it's like saying "We don't know that Gore wouldn't have nuked Madagascar." We can make a pretty reasonable assumption that he wouldn't have done that, and wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

To speculate that he "might have" does the history of this fiasco a great disservice, as though there is any scenario where an invasion of Iraq was logically "on the table" after 9/11. It wasn't. It only pertained to the agenda of a group of neocons led by Cheney & Wolfowicz, who surrounded & exerted plenty of influence on Bush, but wouldn't have been near a Gore administration.

Enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top